Don’t Go Getting Crazy (2013Nov26)

There seems to be a rise in mental issues that may or may not be part of the dip in our economy. After all, if you take someone’s livelihood away and practically guarantee that he or she won’t be able to find a new job, ‘reactive behavior’ occurs—you can call it insanity if you want, or call it desperation, or cognitive dysfunction, or even maybe hunger and shame.

Suddenly ‘life on the street’ gets a little more crowded, a little more dangerous—people with poor coping skills feel pressure, newly homeless are still reeling from the collapse of their lives, families, self-worth… As for me, besides the terror at the thought I could someday end up there (!) I see it as a scary sci-fi story—the rich people have hacked the system, disenfranchised  much of the majority’s (the Saps’) democratic, legislative machinery of redress and reform, and have settled in for a long era of sucking our blood, like tics, and laughing down at us from their penthouses.

Having had Arnold Schwarzenegger serve as Governor of the State of California, it is difficult to imagine his sui generis Action-Hero-role swooping in and kicking ass and blowing up bad guys—when Ahnold is blatantly a part of the current system—a system that is proof against any uprising of the heroic or the violent. When your enemy is the system, you are facing down the heavily armed, the decidedly uninterested, and the pitiful few whose life is nearly as bad as one’s own.

Even some of the worst-off, the real ‘nose-divers’—they want nothing so much as a chance to buy back into the system that brought them where they are—on the street. And for many people, there seems little difference between business and gambling—both want something from you, both offer you future advantages that may or may not happen, depending on how honest the table is—and the luck of the draw.

But what does business offer during these hard, hard times? A virtual guarantee that the game is rigged, that the fat cats make the big dough and all us little people just keep on working, and taking it, without much to show for it. But let’s not be silly—in a world where our banking and finance industry big-shots are convicted felons, how can we possibly maintain our hope that the dice aren’t loaded in Vegas and ACNJ?

A fascinating field for debate–can civilization contain the animal within all of us? Do we want it to? If so, how much containment is enough? How much is too much? Should society try to accommodate our animal-humanity, or repress it? Can we, as a group, or even I, as an individual, ever match up our late-night resolutions with our early-morning excuses?

If everyone is at some level of mental health, how far should we go to splice that psyche onto a digital world of yes and no answers? Are people called ‘sane’, such as you or me, only to say that we are somewhat less crazy than the institutionalized crazies? We all live inside our heads–society lives outside of everyone’s heads–can we ever synchronize the two or are we doomed to mob-mentality forever?

Fascism? Not at all–I believe the problem is less amenable to brute force than it may seem–the biggest question is how aware people are of the various attempts at all those things that are currently underway–we use iconic words like liberty and freedom to represent the value of each individual life and heart. Nonetheless, we have a criminal/justice/penal system to exert constraints against anyone getting too ‘free’. We have ‘social services’ which imply that even the poorest soul will be kept from harm. Nonetheless we write budgets that curtail those services at the very time when their need for expenditures increases and unemployment is high.

We aren’t talking about ‘two steps forward, one step back’, we’re talking about two steps in every direction. People love being ‘hooked up’ to the world on the internet, but they don’t want anyone to peek at their private business as it streams to every hub across the globe. People will endure personal searches to get on a plane, but they don’t want their freedoms impinged upon by setting up DWI roadblocks in their neighborhood.

To me, it’s a matter of facing facts–you can’t have a globalized ‘community’ without its mandatory troublemakers (every community has them) not to mention Big Bro checking out our keystrokes–but digital surveillance doesn’t actually focus on an individual, it just monitors all traffic for key words and phrases. We like being able to track our car when someone rips it off, but we don’t want the police to be able to track it. We like to check out of a store where the counter-person just aims a laser gun at the RFID tag, instead of using a brain that may or may not be there–but we don’t want that data to be used for inventory, marketing, sales projections, etc.

We don’t even have a clear demarcation line between what is our behavior (our private business) and what breadcrumbs we leave as consumers (corporate research)! There’s a lady’s family that has been fighting to take the patent for her cancer-cell genes away from a pharma-R&D corporation and return them to the deceased’s family’s possession–but it’s all new law. People don’t notice what a brouhaha goes on in civil courts for all these new legal issues raised by new technology, particularly in biology and surveillance. The faster they drop in our laps, the more new law is required to control all the new abuses all this tech progress makes possible!

And, as someone (finally) began pointing out, our legislation has no ‘housekeeping’ function–we never repeal outdated laws–which in some cases can be a good or a bad thing. I don’t have a solution–but I know it’s a problem, and I know no one is talking about it.

New South Wales Art Gallery - night

New South Wales Art Gallery – night

50 Years Ago

I was born in ‘56, so I was a seven-year-old in 2nd grade, when we all got marched out to the classroom they crammed all of us kids into—the staff had a TV set up (no small doings in ’63) so we could all watch news coverage of President Kennedy’s assassination. That was my first sense of a world outside of my neighborhood, my first sense of witnessing a change in our civilization—and it wasn’t the Zapruder tape of the actual event—it was Walter Cronkite talking into the camera. I, of course, was ever afterward to take as gospel anything sent my way by the medium of network news which was, itself, just a-borning.

 

TV reporters such as Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, and David Brinkley were well-respected and almost universally trusted, and they did things differently back then. For instance, whenever you were about to see something amusing, something not strictly newsworthy, the on-camera reporter would make a prolonged point about the following images being just that—amusing, but not strictly newsworthy. Back then, the TV news broadcasts were the networks’ way of fulfilling the FCC requirement that public airwaves be used in the public’s interest. The whole arrangement was new enough that network heads weren’t about to mess with the almost-PBS-type tenets of the news-reporting broadcasts.

 

One can see that is quite a distance from what we have now—news as consumer product—and the effects are also visible in this last week’s reportage. Everyone was focused on the ‘anniversary’ of the assassination, which amounted to little more than a re-airing of the incessant, traumatized broadcasts of the news reports of that awful day and a liberal slathering of Zapruder psych-trauma footage in an almost music-video-like strobing. But what I couldn’t help notice was that there was no reporting for those couple-or-three days of intensive ‘JFK’.

 

Apparently, taking a five-minute slot at the top of the hour was sufficient to deliver what the cable-news channels ordinarily spend 24 solid hours dispensing. I wonder exactly what they left out?

I’m just joking—you and I know exactly what was left out—the political tennis match, of which these channels have become the ball, was deemed skip-able for a few days. Also, we weren’t all being distracted by fervid speculation upon the possibility that a news-event-in-progress will go this way or that way. These things waste the time of busy people and fill the time of idlers—that TV news has been forced to accept the yoke of commercialism is a very sad loss for we of the TV generation. I stop in with Gwen Ifill or BBC World News, and I skim the NY Times most days. I only watch CNN and MSNBC as comfort food, when I’m just tired and want to know what’s up, out in the world.

And it’s too bad that I had to witness this epiphany while being bummed out about the ‘50th anniversary of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s assassination’  being all over TV all weekend—no one of us who saw it live really wants to dwell on it any more than we have to—plus it constantly reminds me I’m fifty-seven, and that’s no help to me, I don’t know about other people. But I took away an important proof: even the Cable News channels know that their programs are a waste of time—and that will help me save some of my own.

Backwards Bach

I’ve been playing Bach for several decades (make that trying to play Bach) and sometimes, just to keep things fresh, I start at the end of the book and play each dance in reverse order. I still repeat the minuet after its middle part–but otherwise I go from last dance to first dance. Anyhow…

Click to watch YouTube Video

Click to watch YouTube Video

 

Click to watch YouTube Video

Click to watch YouTube Video

 

Click to watch YouTube Video

Click to watch YouTube Video

 

 

One-Way Finger-Pointing (2013Nov15)

So, I can’t understand this ‘instant disaster’—or maybe I just don’t want to—a few days ago, everyone was very happy with the President, even though there were problems with the Healthcare.gov website, and then the Insurance industry sends out blanket cancellations, specifically blaming the Affordable Healthcare Act for the cancelling of these policies.

First off, they followed this specious accusation with a sales pitch for a ridiculously overpriced ‘replacement’ policy they offer—and held back any emphasis on the new insurance ‘marketplace’ the AHA laws had created—sometimes failing to even mention that option in their ‘cancellation notices’. And there’s something else they conveniently overlook—that the Insurance moguls were cancelling existing policies because they failed to meet the new minimum requirements for Health Insurance!

So, did Obama really lie about keeping our policy? Or did he just conveniently overlook that Insurance Companies were definitely going to have to cancel those policies, because  the new law made them sub-standard. Now, I heard a lot of cherry-picking: some middle-aged woman made a big deal about not needing maternity coverage, because she was done having children. She didn’t understand, apparently, that the point is no health insurance policy be considered legitimate if it doesn’t cover all medical needs.

Lots of people don’t need every single, itemized bit of coverage in their plan—that’s called a ‘minimum standard’—the Insurance company offers a policy that protects you from unforeseen medical costs—if it doesn’t include maternity, that’s not a ‘savings’ for post-menopausal women, it’s merely a refusal of decent coverage for all the rest of the women capable of bearing children.

In all this ‘Tea Party’ madness, we sometimes lose sight of whose side we are on. Health Care Reform has been a major issue for decades—and for all that time, between our insurers and our employers deciding what our health coverage and cost should be, legislators have tried to curb the excesses and depredation that system was stuck in.

It is the Health Insurance Industry that is our enemy, not the President of the United States—how hard is that to understand? Insurers and Big Pharma have their economic sights set on all of us, just as any employers will. They want to get the most they can out of us, and give us back the least they can get away with. If our government can protect us from that, why are there so many politicians railing against the Affordable Healthcare Act?

I suspect their agendas lean towards other priorities than our well-being. The really sad part is they are tricking us into helping them help the Insurance lobby.

And in the process, they are demonizing our President for trying to curb the excessive rip-offs of these money-grubbers and make things better for the rest of us. They try to defame Obama just to help the Insurance industry maintain their ‘freedom’ to screw us over—and the Talking Heads rush on the air and say, “O No, the world is ending for Obama” – the real headline is: “Insurance Companies Close to Eluding Regulation”.

Back In The USSR Days

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_06_soviet-space-program-propaganda-poster-28

When the Cold War ended and people started tearing down the Berlin Wall in 1989, it wasn’t just the end of a war, it was the end of a way of life. And those of us who were born near its beginning were cut adrift in a world that no longer made sense.

In my day, we knew who the enemy was—it was the United Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR, the place that is known today as about ten different countries, including Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia (or whatever, and however many, new countries Czechoslovakia is now), and most of Eastern Europe. We thought of them as the Commies.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_09_images

Boy, did we hate the Commies! They outlawed religion. They kept the few Jews that survived WWII from leaving the Soviet Union, so they couldn’t go live in the new Israel. (Or NYC, which had a larger Jewish population than Israel—and still does, for all I know.). They outlawed any literature and music from the West (we used to be ‘the West’—that is, the NATO countries and their satellite nations). Trade with ‘The Free World’ was prohibited. Free speech and free assembly were prohibited. The only reason we went to the Moon was because the Russkies (another word for Commies) put a satellite in Earth orbit first—and scared us to death with visions of them raining nuclear missiles down from the sky. Then VP Lyndon Johnson was quoted saying ‘we cannot allow the communists to take the high ground of space’.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_03_ku-xlarge

We had our favorite Soviet artists, like Solzhenitsyn the writer and Shostakovich the composer—and we admired them not just for their talents or artistry, but for the harassment they endured under the Soviet’s cultural restrictions. We ridiculed the Russkies in our media—Boris and Natasha (of ‘The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show’ fame) were generic caricatures of inept Soviet spies who couldn’t even catch “moose and squirrel”. As a child, I also went through atom bomb defense drills at school—they had all us kids go into the hallway, huddle down facing the walls and cover our heads with our hands. I remember also being informed that I should never look directly at an atomic blast because it would cause permanent blindness. No one said anything about how blindness would be the least of a person’s problems if they were close enough to look directly at a nuclear explosion.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_02_ku-xlarge

But, there were upsides to the Cold War, too. Companies’ employment practices couldn’t be made too draconian without being accused of the same kind of autocratic invasion of human rights that the Commies were guilty of. Our freedoms of speech and of assembly were more jealously guarded because it was one of the things that made us the ‘good guys’.

Religion was kept in perspective as well—we could see that no hand of God was destroying the Godless Commies, so we couldn’t say religion was fact, as some evangelists try to do today—but we also recognized it as an important personal freedom. It was relegated to the background in practical terms—no one took seriously the fission between science and the Bible—science was science and religion was religion.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_08_love18

And civil rights got a huge boost from the Cold War—as soon as the Commies began to deride our ‘Free Country’ for being racist and quite unequal, the civil rights groups, the feminist groups, they all had to be taken seriously—they had become part of the Cold War, not as an enemy but as a necessity.

Information was free then—as it had always been. Scientists took collaboration to be such a serious mandate for scientific progress that the idea of owning information had a Commie feel to it. And that was leading edge scientific research—nowadays we can accept the idea of information ownership because our ‘information’ consists of reality-show-videos, music-videos, online gaming shortcuts—and other such frippery. The sharing of information between two scientists, in today’s terms, would be up against a mountain of Non-Disclosure Agreements and a mob of lawyers. The people who own things have gathered information unto themselves—and now the great scientific minds of the World are kept locked away by these Fat Cats so that they may profit from whatever genius those thinkers possess.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_07_tumblr_mlaknq4ash1qgvzl4o1_500

I admit, it was a simpler time. Back then, the idea of riding in a jumbo jet was new and modern—steering them into the WTC Towers wasn’t something anyone thought about until much later—and even then, in 2001, most of us were shocked by that particular idea. I read the “Tom Swift, Jr.” adventure series when I was little—that was science fiction about jumbo planes and undersea construction, all dumbed down to the level of grade school reading. But I loved them.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_05_PartyPoster

Later on, I began to read the late Tom Clancy—along with several million other people—his novels were very satisfying. The only evil in the world was the Communist Bloc—and U.S. soldiers never did anything wrong. As long as Jack Ryan defused the bomb in time, the world remained free from the threat of Soviet Dominion! In Clancy’s last real best-selling thriller, “Executive Orders”, he has cobbled together enough serendipity to land Jack Ryan in the White House (Someone steers a jetliner into the Capitol Building during a State of the Union address.) yet still leaves his character enough running room to fight bad guys hand-to-hand before it’s all over. And when it was over, it was over—that book was published in 1996.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_011_soviet-space-program-propaganda-poster-22-small

Clancy would write several other popular novels that would concentrate on the technology of modern warfare, mostly starring the sons (and daughters) of the main characters used throughout the books of his glory days. Many movies were made of his books–and his later post-Cold War writings were almost as prodigious, inspiring the TV series “Tom Clancy’s Net Force” and video-games from “Red Storm Entertainment”. He died in October of this year, 2013.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_014_image_hero_0024

Not only had we become used to the two-dimensional configuration of our civilization, us vs. them, but at its farthest, most extreme remnants, it became codified in entertainments, from “The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming” (1966) until the movie version of “The Hunt for Red October” (1990)—we enjoyed the melancholy status quo of two peoples separated by ideologies, who were always seen by each other as far too human when encountered face-to-face.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_04_soviet-space-program-propaganda-poster-29

We had yet to encounter a world in which terrorism was the new paradigm—I’ve always been very upset about our country’s reaction to 9/11—the fear that we allowed into our life-styles and our laws—was by far the greater attack—and we fell before it. Nowadays I could start a riot simply by walking away from a backpack in a crowded place. And yet we have more fatalities accounted for by random shootings this past decade, not to mention the home-grown terrorist Americans that bombed Oklahoma City. We have more fatalities accounted for by soldiers’ suicides than those who have fallen in action!

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_012_DonaldDuck-propaganda-poster

Clearly, something’s amiss. We must put away our fear. And we must put away our pride. We have to take stock of ourselves, individually, and as a society, and we have to start figuring out sensible plans for moving forward.

The biggest storm in recorded history hit the Philippines a few days ago—and the consensus is that climate change is about as ‘real’ as it gets. The lying bastards who have knowingly obfuscated this issue for decades to get their almighty, god-damned dollar are not pooh-poohing Global Warming anymore—the smart ones are investing in the ocean-walling business—every big city in the world is near the shore of some ocean, and that’s a lot of massive berms and boundary wetlands.

The Chinese are learning what we learned—go overboard on the cheap, dirty energy, and the cities become murky fogbanks of lung-glue, and cancers break out all over. The Chinese will be easier to reason with—their advisors need only point out their windows, or at American newspaper headlines—the results of fifty years of greedy, sloppy energy-production are manifesting globally, in historically bad weather and bad crops. The planet is physically changing—and not in a good way. Between resource-rape and over-population, we’re headed for a bumpy ride these next ten, twenty years.

Tea-partiers trumpeting their petulant ignorance are not to be blamed—no journalist with any wits would waste time on Sarah Palin and that bunch. It is the Koch brothers, a notably personal aberration comprised of twin nut-jobs, who deserve the blame for inciting the stupidest demographic we have, and more than them—it is the cold, shark-like predations of all corporations, in their present configuration. The laws governing corporations in the USA read like an instruction manual for destroying the human race—and they must be changed.

We can never go back to the fairy-tale of “Moose and Squirrel” vs. “Boris and Natasha”—we know all too well now that our greatest dangers lie within ourselves and within our society. As a people, we don’t take enough responsibility—we don’t have more than a quarter of eligible voters voting in any election—and you can imagine how many informed voters that comes to. Not a lot. You know who comes out—the yahoos. They may be dumb, but they’re smart enough to win elections—simply by showing up.

I don’t know—I’m not expecting to see too many more decades—I ain’t dying, but I ain’t young, neither. My only concern is the kids, trying to make a good life for themselves in this junk-heap of a civilization we’ve become. Whenever I try to imagine a lifetime starting from now, I just get very tired. Can you imagine? It was hard enough starting in the 1950s—starting in the twenty-first century seems like something I wouldn’t enjoy—luckily, my opinion isn’t what matters.

There are some things I’m sure of. Money is a problem. Ignorance is a problem. Fertility is a problem. And, of course, Peace is a problem. There are organizations which, no matter how fine someone slices it, exist for the sole purpose of keeping the truth from being shared. Likewise, there are PR firms and propaganda departments that exist for the sole purpose of telling us lies, or at least, well-spun truths. Education will never work well until we recognize it as an ongoing thing—most especially now, when technology changes the marketplace, and the jobs market, so quickly.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_013_ku-xlarge

Public schools that don’t graduate literate students are not acceptable—how is that even possible? It’s possible because even very good, dedicated people are powerless against politics—and politics is rife in public education now. Maybe that’s because parents started trying to get their kids educated ‘with conditions’. The differently-abled are well-deserving of any assistance that can be devised. But the differently-‘faithed’ are a different story—we need to tell those parents to cowboy up and teach that junk at home, where it belongs.

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_012_soviet-space-program-propaganda-poster-16-small

We can see the way the debate is formed by the media—what’s important is pre-decided—all that’s left is the arguing, which the media facilitate the best they can. And we all have fun, arguing over stuff, discussing stuff, criticizing stuff. We can see that many important things are left out of modern news reporting—things that don’t have high visibility yet have immense importance—these issues are ignored entirely. Think to yourself—aren’t there things you think about, that you never hear about in the news? And aren’t some of those things kinda important?

20131114XD-Googl-USSR-_01_Poster010

Ahh, like The Beatles, I miss being “Back In The USSR”.

This Is One Of Those

Monday, November 11, 2013              5:58 PM

Marconi at his desk

WIKI: [“They All Laughed” is a song composed by George Gershwin, with lyrics by Ira Gershwin, written for the 1937 film Shall We Dance where it was introduced by Ginger Rogers as part of a song and dance routine with Fred Astaire.]

Lyrics Excerpt:

“They all laughed at Christopher Columbus /When he said the world was round

They all laughed when Edison recorded sound

They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother/ When they said that man could fly

They told Marconi, wireless was a phony / It’s the same old cry

They all laughed at Rockefeller Center / Now they’re fighting to get in

They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin

They all laughed at Fulton and his steamboat

Hershey and his chocolate bar

Ford and his Lizzie kept the laughers busy

That’s how people are…”

True that, as the kids might say. That’s how people are. Why is doing something new such a big deal? Why is it that people go crazy whenever a person tries to stop an old mistake, or make something new that makes things better?

You’d think we’d have gotten over it by now—or at least learned not to be panicked by the new.  When astronomers said the Sun didn’t go around the Earth, I could see why some of them could have been burned at the stake—it was a long time ago, and who really knew anything, right? But then they used that information, along with telling time, and a compass, to navigate out of sight of shore.

Did the big bosses at the Vatican say sorry? Well, yes, they did. But it was just a year or two ago—like, six centuries too late for those crispy scientists-on-a-stick—o, well! Then there was slavery. It’s eerie how the Spielberg film, “Lincoln”, showed legislators in Congress debating whether slavery should be forbidden—very similar to the same scenes in old movies, and in modern movies and now on CSPAN (et.al.) right up to the latest news-cycle—like recently, when the government shut down for two weeks because they were against something new, I was watching CNN, CSPAN, and the PBS-related news-programs. At times, these days when I have too much time all the time, I’ll have to sometimes check myself, and differentiate the ‘current events’—extended TV show and any of the fictional entertainment I might be channel-surfing past.

We watch “Lincoln” and we think to ourselves, well, of course they’re going to prohibit owning people—but that’s only because we know how it ends. At the time, those conservative yahoos truly argued, with straight faces, against the criminalization of their presumption of superiority. The more frightened they were at the thought of changing the status of the African-Americans from chattel to citizenry, the harder they argued to keep things as they were. One might speculate that having a vehement opponent—which righteousness is prone to be—the conservatives’ fear of the unknown may have been brought to the level of panic by the addition of the sense that they were being rushed into something. Either way, there is neither any change in a conservative’s feeling of being rushed nor in his, or her, belief that all change is a bad thing.

I was young enough to be surprised about the male uproar over women’s lib, as it was labeled in my day—I thought, here we’re well into the fight for racial equality—most intelligent people have come to feel uncomfortable with showing themselves to be bigots in public—and yet the simple commutative principal that I’d used to equate accepting the equality of African-Americans with our own mothers and sisters—and daughters—being given that same equality before the law—and, rightfully, in our hearts—this ‘elephant in the room’ of mine was invisible to many men. And it was easy to see why—they were terrified—they’d seen too much Donna Reed as children—and someone was trying to shut down all the Stepford Wives, leaving them with a bunch of chores they didn’t know how to do—and that part was just scratching the surface.

Shunning had thrived in the later centuries, under its new guise of ‘propriety’. The World Wars that take up the first half of the twentieth century kept everyone’s face in the dirt. But once we woke up to the 1950s, women had both served in an official capacity—nurses and WACS and WAFS, etc.—and in bomber-manufacturing, etc., at home—the majority of them weren’t about to object to the dream of keeping a nice big house while the man did all the paid work. But indoor plumbing, a modern range-oven, washer-dryer, vacuum, station wagon to the market—all such activities had reached a tipping point.

We had reached a civilization milestone—a woman no longer required the full twenty-four hours of each day to do the once-gargantuan task of doing all that stuff without appliances, or hot and cold running water. It passed by with little fanfare—no doubt most men suspected their ‘homemakers’ weren’t really ‘working’, you know, like they were—and saw no great change being implied. Big mistake. Women work very hard—in my experience most women work harder than most men. Once they could reach the end of the work before the end of the day, they didn’t stop working. The just started working on new things, new ideas—and you know, I’m sure, how that kind of nonsense ends up, right? Yeah, next thing you know, they’re saying, “Hey, we didn’t care when we were too busy to listen to your bull, but now that we have the leisure to consider your verbal nonsense, you’re starting to piss us off.”

Now, I saw this coming a mile away—I just couldn’t believe the conservative line on women’s lib—bunch of Bible stuff and a dash of reductionist sociology, et Voila! Nothing. What can one say? Am I going to walk up to my mother and tell her she doesn’t deserve as much respect as I do? In what universe?

It’s a constant drum-beat throughout history—Monotheism is an abomination—kill the Pharaoh! Christianity is wrong—kill the Christians! The Christians are in charge—kill the non-Christians! Alchemy is witchcraft—kill the chemists! Astronomy is sacrilege—kill the mathematicians! And—you know—I just wanted to pause here, and consider that there has been a major change—we don’t just kill people in bunches any more—well, most of us, most of the time, anyway.

And so the new fashion is to ridicule discoverers and inventors and explorers or scientists in general. We’d still kill you for some atrocities—like if you were gay or transvestite or Jewish or Gypsy… ..well, anyway, a lot of murders go unsolved, even today when every drama show is a training tape for the police academy—so you can imagine how easy it was for the sociopaths to prey on the outcasts in earlier times, up to say, the 1950s and 60s.

After that, the FBI started using new evidence collected through science—and now it’s like a science fiction movie what the police go through at, say, a murder scene. But we still haven’t changed anything about our prisons—there was a time of optimism, when Robert Redford played a new prison warden (with a heart, of course) and they took to re-naming prisons as ‘rehabilitation centers’, but there is no significant change in the way we punish criminals—except they have to do their time without a cigarette nowadays.

I don’t know nothing about criminology—all I know is no one changes anything about prisons—and I’m pretty sure we have found better ways to deal with criminals by, what’s it today? –2013, yeah—well into the twenty-first century and we still put people in cages—that’s just wrong. We’re not even trying, on that one.

But aside from prison and the grave, ridicule can still do harm to people that are only trying to make things better. Those germ guys—Lister and Pasteur, the established medical community gave them both a very hard time. Did they spend years afterwards, giving speeches of apologies—no, that doesn’t happen. The ridicule—always—the sincere retraction and apology—only spoken of, never witnessed, to my knowledge.

Who else—O, yeah—the whole electricity crowd—people refused to believe Bell when he first demonstrated it in public—not everybody, just the you-know-whos. And Marconi’s wireless radio, O—and I almost left out the big dog, T.A. Edison—let’s tick’em off, shall we? 1st Electrical Turbine, 1st Light Bulb, 1st to offer Electricity to Homes as a Public Utility, 1st Audio Recording, 1st Record-Player, 1st Motion Picture—and those are just the highlights—and  that’s not mentioning the many developments of these basic inventions throughout his many years of experimentation. Now Edison, as you may imagine, was found to be difficult to laugh off—sure, one could grumble about ‘new-fangled’-this and high-falutin’-that—but at the same time, you can see where you’re going, indoors, in the dead of night; there was no open flame in every room any longer—and no need for candles and oil lamps. And one could listen to a symphony play Beethoven, right in their own parlor—it sounded a little more professional than the family’s traditional caterwaul. Edison was like Euclid that way—like him or not, he’s hard to argue with.

So I’m learning all this stuff in elementary school, and even then I noticed that any big advance in civilization involved someone being given a very hard time, ranging from laughed-out-of-town to burnt-at-the-stake. And I see it on TV—African-Americans in the southern states standing up to people that would do anything to keep those protestors relegated to second-class citizenship. And I thought to myself, hey, it’s Galileo and Louis Pasteur all over again—can’t they see they’re trying to hold back civilization’s natural impetus towards making us a better people, a fairer people, a kinder people? And after the race riots, the news showed the Viet Nam war—people killing and dying—I think that must be a bad scene in real life—I didn’t even like seeing it on TV.

Conservatives—are they the natural result of an evolutionary process that makes most of the herd dislike change, while only a few will go rogue and strike out after something different? Is that why they’re so politically powerful—because at heart most people don’t want change of any kind? Is that why rabble-rousers have to do so much rousing? Is that why every great person will eventually find themselves wondering if they’re crazy? And, if so, is that the corollary to all crazy people thinking they make perfect sense?

All good questions, but I digress. I had a point to make here—I’m almost certain of it. ‘sfunny how you get an idea about something big-ish like ‘social progress’ and no matter where you turn, you’re always getting caught up in details that don’t even make sense after a while? Well, this is one of those—sorry.

I really enjoyed that PBS part 1 of 2 Kennedy; American Experience—hope I remember to watch the end tomorrow night. O, and here’s a video of just me and another video of me playing some Bach:

Drawings on Request

Saturday, November 09, 2013             7:15 PM

_*+*_X P E R _*+*_ D U N N _*+*_*+*_X P E R _*+*_ D U N N _*+*__*+*_X P E R _*+*_ D U N N _*+*_*+*_X P E R _*+*_

Start of commercial announcement:

Artistic Drawings on Request – 15 Bucks Each

 

(No Payment until Fully Satisfied – Free Gift with Purchase)

The world-renowned artiste, Xper. Dunn,

is open to all comers

 

Your drawing may be something specifically commissioned—

-OR

You may say, “Surprise me.” –in which case a suitable drawing will be committed at the draughtsman’s discretion.

 

Either way, it’s still only $15—

Don’t miss this limited time offer !

email now: xperdunn@optonline.net

 

{And tell your friends.}

:End of commercial announcement

_*+*_X P E R _*+*_ D U N N _*+*_*+*_X P E R _*+*_ D U N N _*+*__*+*_X P E R _*+*_ D U N N _*+*_*+*_X P E R _*+*_

The above is a potential posting to generate revenue.

I liked ‘five bucks each’ because that was my first sidewalk art festival price, back when I was fourteen, in Bedford Hills, 1970. But it presents a conundrum –packing and shipping are gonna run me darn near $5—and that’s only domestic—my international friends may be loss-leaders—no, not may, they’ll definitely go over $5. So I should make it $10—that way I’d end up with about five bucks net apiece.

So, now my whole idea is screwed—if I have to charge over five bucks, the question becomes, ‘What are my drawings worth to the average consumer?’ the answer to which is, ‘Nothing, if not sentiment or curiosity’—which begs the question, ‘How would ten bucks, paid by a FB friend, be any different from pan-handling?’ Having reached that cul-de-sac, I’m forced to ask myself if I really believe my drawings are worth money?

I never really have. They’ve always seemed both more and less than any price—something I did for people, as a favor or a gift. But I want to build some kind of mental scaffolding that will make the drawings seem worth the effort, outside of my own ambitions (which I long ago fulfilled—as anyone who has found happiness in life can say) thus I’m left with the problem of how much would be a seeming pittance for my hoped-for customers and still pay its own freight, as it were.

Ten dollars is the best figure from that point of view—but there’s a funny thing you learn in advertising—if you only charge a fraction of what the thing usually sells for, no one will buy it because they’ll assume it’s no good! This actually happened to me once, when I created a marketing-demographic-by-zip-code program for back-end analysis (go ahead, make your jokes). At the time, inferior programs from specialty companies went for $15,000 to $30,000 a pop. We offered ours at $500 and no one bought it. We persuaded a client to do parallel mailings, to match us against the two top alternative products—and the results showed that our product worked better. And even with that proof included in our sales pitch to clients, they still stayed away in droves. We raised the price to $5,000 and people started buying it—sweardagod.

So, now the question becomes, ‘If I’m asking ten bucks for a decent work of art, aren’t I kind of guaranteeing that only the pitying will buy it?’ I mean, where’s my sense of self-worth? I almost have to ask more than ten bucks, or I’d be insulting myself, in public, for no good reason. So what, twenty, twenty-five?

Yeah, but then it’s no longer a pittance. If I still had a steady hand, I’d offer to do portraits—but I found likenesses difficult enough when I was in full health—trying to do them now would most likely result in a caricature—and few people appreciate having to pay to be insulted.

Which reminds me—I need to somehow say that I don’t do requests in the specific sense, only in subject matter—again, I’d need better physical self-control to realize someone else’s visions on paper. But I can do landscapes, or a picture from tales or myths, general stuff—the more general the better. And heck, why commission a picture when it’s something you can already see in your mind, anyhow?

So, that settles that, ten bucks it is. I’m not going to be pushed around by control freaks who want me to draw their pictures instead of mine. Wow, I’m starting to remember why I stopped drawing—it’s not the work so much as the worry. Better make it $15.

Okay, my fellow bloggers and bloggettes, any comments, criticisms, suggestions, warnings—all are gratefully welcomed—please help me design a nice little poster for me to post. Some sample drawings are included below for your perusal.

Monkeys On The Bed:

Snowmen Finger Puppets:

Bird In Sky:

The Magic Kite-Tail:

Pumpkin Carving:

Tree-Dragon:

Nightmare:

Flower:

Rhino-Forte:

The Day The Planets Came Home:

 

 

Three Sweets to the Wind (2013Nov08)

Hello, you lucky people.

I finally have some postable Bach (not that it’s great–or even good) that is about as good as I get.

Please don’t feel bad if you don’t watch the whole thing–I get tired as I go along, so the mistakes and flubs become worse and more frequent as the video goes on….

I’m also very pleased with my Improv today–I didn’t really play the whole thing straight through as shown here–it was all in one recording, but there were three places where I played freestyle–and I didn’t have the patience for separate videos, so they’re all bunched into this one video. As always, I hope you enjoy it…

[Improv – Sweets to the Suites   (2013Nov08)]

[J.S. Bach – selections from three (3) French Suites   (2013Nov08)]

 

Sweets for the Suite

These recordings began as mixtures–I would play some of Bach’s French Suites 1-6 and intersperse that with my usual improvs.

The Bach is very challenging and it is rare that I get a good recording of me playing any of it–this time was not rare at all, so I’ve spared my listeners (who am I kidding? nobody listens…) the Bach and present here only the improvs I played in between the Bach massacres. Frustrated at my inability to post any Bach, I named these improvs in tribute ‘French Sweetys’ No 1 & 2.

I hope they are enjoyable.   By the way… this time I didn’t download any single graphic image from Google Image Search–instead, I took a screen capture (control-shft-PrtScr) and pasted that whole array of pictures (the search term was ‘Painting Queen’). I post the original screen-capture below as a link to the playlist of both improvs–and then below that, I put the two separate improv links…

20131107XD-FrenchSwettys_QueensMontage_01(TitlesCARD)

 

 

Take That

Take That (Election Night 2013)

Election Night! November 5th, 2013

Election Night!
November 5th, 2013

Backlog

I’ve just been catching up to myself–all recordings from the past eight days have now been processed:

 

Hope you enjoy….